Sweden Puts a Stop To Accepting "Refugees"

Sweden’s prime minister headlined gala fundraisers, Swedish celebrities starred in telethons, and a country that prides itself on doing the right thing seemed to rally as one to embrace refugees fleeing for their lives.

But after taking in more asylum seekers per capita than any other nation in Europe, Sweden’s welcome mat now lies in tatters.

Overwhelmed by the human tide of 2015, the center-left government is deploying extraordinary new border controls and slashing benefits in an unmistakable signal to refugees contemplating the long trek to Sweden in the new year: Stay out.

They ARE Coming For Our Guns

And they could not be more blatant about it, nor about their total disregard for the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

2nd Amendment

“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

description of House Resolution 4269

Zero Hedge:New Gun Control Bill Hits Congress: "To Ensure That The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Is NOT Unlimited"

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPLan.com,
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings we warned that sweeping changes were in the works for Americans’ right to bear arms. It started with ammunition tax proposals, restrictions on firearm accessories imports and most recently Governors began bypassing Congress altogether by banning gun ownership for those on any of the government’s many watchlists. The Obama administration has also targeted licensed firearms sellers across the United States by forcing banks to treat them like pornography businesses and impeding their access to transaction processing systems and business banking accounts.
States like California already ban “assault weapons” and outlaw “high capacity” magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But the kinds of restrictive laws that strike at the very heart of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have thus far been limited to just a dozen or so heavily liberal states.
Until now.While Americans anxiously prepared for their Christmas festivities, anti gun proponents in Congress were hard at work drafting a new bill. If passed H.R. 4269 would literally redefine the Second Amendment as evidenced by the bill’s description, which in no uncertain terms clarifies its ultimate goal:

“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

The bill directly targets every semi-automatic firearm in the United States including handguns, shotguns and rifles. It specifically mentions certain firearms and manufacturers, including the popular AR-15 and AK-47 rifles.
Because the law is Federal it would blanket the country with new restrictions, including making it illegal to own any magazine that exceeds a capacity of ten (10) rounds.
And here’s the kicker, even if your weapon has a legally-defined low capacity detachable magazine but is modified with any of the following accessories, it is considered an “assault rifle” and would be outright banned in the United States.

Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

To be clear, the new bill puts all half measures aside and goes for the jugular.This is the worst case scenario that many Americans have feared.
If you own a weapon on the ban list or have accessories as described by the bill, your firearm will be outlawed in the United States of America.

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

…

“(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—

“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

…

“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

The bill was introduced in Congress on Decemeber 16, 2015 and currently has 123 co-sponsors – all democrats.
We know that gun bans don’t work but one can’t help but think the agenda goes much further than the notion that they want to make us safer. If that were the case then our lawmakers wouldn’t allow drug cartels, gang members and Islamic terrorists to cross into the U.S. through our porous southern border.The reality is that a cloud of tyranny has descended upon America. For it to be successful the American people must first be disarmed.
As history has proven time and again, a disarmed populace can easily be led to slaughter. But unlike the tens of millions executed in ethnic, religious and political cleansings of the 20th century, Americans have a rich tradition of personal liberty and the right to bear arms. It is embedded in our culture and our founding document. And as Texas police chief Randy Kennedy recently warned, if the government pushes too far they may well incite a revolution.Politico:

Obama set to unveil curbs on gun sellers

Executive actions expected next week will be part of the president's new year push to make progress on long-stalled problems before the 2016 presidential election heats up.

President Barack Obama’s bid to assert himself in his final year will begin with long-awaited executive actions on gun control, expected to be released next week, shortly after he returns to Washington.
The White House is putting finishing touches on several measures in an effort to make progress on curbing gun violence, an issue the president and close aides have found frustratingly intractable, before the race to replace him enters prime time.

According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.

The administration is also expected toimpose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.
Neither comes close to the stronger gun control measures Obama sought in the wake of the 2012 mass shooting of schoolchildren in Sandy Hook and that he has said he still wants. But with Congress unlikely to approve any new gun curbs before the 2016 election, the measures are in line with what gun-control advocates were hoping would be adopted before Obama leaves office.
As with every aspect of the president’s final year, the decisions about the gun actions are being made with a sense of limited time and the 2016 political calendar. Obama will be returning from his Hawaii vacation, eager to make a splash; an earlier-than-normal State of the Union address on Jan. 12 is central to that strategy. But with the Iowa caucuses taking place on Feb. 1, Obama will have only a small window to act before the primary melee begins to crowd out other political news.
The background check change has been anticipated for months. Obama will tighten the definition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” of firearms sales. Currently, the law says people who sell guns with the “principal objective of livelihood and profit” have to get a dealer’s license through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — and therefore conduct a background check on buyers no matter where they sell, including online or at a gun show.
It’s unclear whether a lot more dealers would line up for licenses. But gun-control advocates say a better definition would make it much easier to prosecute sellers who should, but don’t. Only about half of the people who are tried for selling guns without a license are convicted by juries, according to a report from Everytown, the pro-gun control group led by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
In an interview, Everytown officials couldn’t confirm whether the White House was heeding their advice. But, said legal director Liz Avore, “Any kind of clarification would be beneficial in this context because right now most sellers and prosecutors are kind of flying blind.”
It's not clear whether Obama has settled on final language yet. But as one of the major proponents of a change, Everytown has recommended adding several factors to the definition — including selling guns in their original packaging, reselling a gun shortly after acquiring it, maintaining a certain quantity of guns for sale or selling more than 25 guns a year — as possible signals that someone needs a license.
A top gun industry executive defended the current definition, saying it requires dealers to make most of their living from gun sales before requiring a license. Based on conversations with ATF officials this month, the executive described the upcoming change as "overreach": “If you are not doing it for the principal purpose of earning a livelihood AND earn a profit, you are not engaged in the business as defined by Congress,” he said in an email.
Another victory for advocates is likely to be a requirement for all licensed dealers and manufacturers to report to federal authorities any guns that are stolen in transit to a buyer as missing from their inventory. Currently, advocates say, thieves often target packages addressed to gun retailers in the hopes of stealing unregistered guns that are harder to trace. And while buyer and seller might sort out refunds or replacements on their own, they’re not required to report the missing guns to the National Crime Information Center.
ATF first proposed the new regulation in August 2014, which industry opposed, saying a voluntary reporting program was working just fine. But the year-and-a-half lag between the rule’s proposal and finalization is another factor urging Obama to act forcefully as he enters the last year in his term.
It is not clear whether the measure will take the form of a new regulation (which would take months longer to finish because of requirements for public comment) or clarification of an existing rule, which would take less time but might not carry as much weight with the courts — or a future administration.
“We have not been told that they are drafting a proposed rule,” the industry executive said. “But it remains to be seen.”
The White House declined to comment on the substance of the executive actions or their timing. Communications Director Jen Psaki told reporters at an event hosted by Bloomberg News in mid-December that the new gun measures were coming in “weeks, not months.”
This latest round of executive moves follows 23 actions related to gun violence that Obama ordered in 2013, in the months following the Sandy Hook massacre, plus two more in 2014. During that same period, Vice President Joe Biden led a failed campaign with congressional Democrats to pass a bill to impose near-universal background checks.
The president’s announcement of new gun actions will be more like his immigration executive orders in late 2014 — currently held up by the courts — issued as part of a broader campaign to pressure Congress and draw a contrast with Republicans.
White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett also raised gun-control advocates’ hopes for new domestic violence provisions last month. In a post on the actress Lena Dunham’s website, Jarrett noted that guns are the most likely cause of death for women who are victims of domestic partner violence.
Gun-control activists acknowledged that changing the rules for licenses might have limited impact on what sellers actually do in the short term. But in this political environment, they’ll take whatever measures they can, no matter how incremental.
“Setting cultural norms," said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, "is something that laws do."

New California gun law advocated by SLO County man to take effect Jan. 1

For Richard Martinez of San Luis Obispo County, it was his son, shot down in a rampage that made national headlines.
For Thomas Allman it was his brother, joining the unremarked thousands who end their lives with guns each year.
Losing troubled loved ones to firearms propelled both men into advocating for a new law that takes effect Jan. 1. Passed in response to the 2014 Isla Vista massacre that killed Martinez’s 20-year-old son, Christopher Michaels-Martinez of Los Osos, it will allow law enforcement or family members to seek restraining orders suspending gun ownership for people who pose a threat to themselves or others.
In the aftermath of the Isla Vista shooting, victims and authorities were haunted by the revelation that the family of killer Elliot Rodger had expressed concerns to mental health workers. Sheriff’s deputies dispatched to Rodger’s apartment departed without touching the three handguns he had legally obtained.

“In many instances — Isla Vista, Tucson, the Navy Yard — family members saw red flags which indicated their family member may be unstable,” Martinez said. The restraining orders “give families and law enforcement a tool they didn’t previously have in these situations where someone is mentally unstable and a substantial danger to others.”

The sheriff of rural Mendocino County, Allman considers himself a Second Amendment stalwart. He adamantly supports the right to carry concealed weapons. He still supports the new law, drawing on reasons both professional and personal.“I don’t think a week can go by that we can’t attribute some type of gun violence to a mental health situation,” Allman said, adding of his brother’s death: “I don’t know if this specific bill would have prevented this from happening, but it certainly would have been an option for my family and I to consider.”
But while backers like Allman and Martinez call the restraining orders a safeguard against future tragedy, critics worry about stripping guns from people who have committed no crime. They say the law, which takes effect in January, could be abused to deprive people of a constitutional right.
“We just can’t be in people’s heads and know exactly what they’re going to do,” said Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, who voted against Assembly Bill 1014. “There are some who say we should just sacrifice the rights people have in an abundance of caution. I don’t think that’s the answer.”
California law already bars gun ownership for a variety of crimes and for people whom peace officers or health officials assess as hazards and admit to mental health facilities.

But the new orders can apply to people who, while they have not been convicted of a crime or committed under so-called 5150 holds, have still alarmed family members or authorities. Allman said the option would “patch a hole that’s been there as long as I’ve been in law enforcement.”

“There’s always a person who doesn’t meet the 5150 criteria and we don’t have the right to take their firearms,” Allman said. “Prior to this bill, families were very restricted in what they could do.”
Family members will be on the front lines for the new restraining orders. Law enforcement officials anticipate hearing from concerned relatives in a process they liken to seeking a domestic violence restraining order, in which the threat of violence — not a conviction — is enough.
“Family members come to us more frequently for help, and therefore it will be another tool for us when a family member is concerned about someone’s behavior and they don’t want them arrested, don’t want them hurt but are concerned about their well-being,” said Capitola police Chief Rudy Escalante, who oversees firearms policy for the California Police Chiefs Association. “A person may not be in imminent danger or threat but maybe a family can look at it over time and say the behavior has gotten more difficult, so we want to pursue this.”
In the Isla Vista case, Escalante added, “because (Rodger) legally possessed the firearms and had not committed a crime, there was nothing they could do.”
Law enforcement officers will also be able to seek the restraining orders. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Sharon Chatman, who has studied the new law, said she expects the “vast majority of these petitions will be by law enforcement.”
In either case, the person at risk of losing their firearms will have a chance to contest the notion they shouldn’t possess guns. Judges will oversee the hearing and decide whether there’s merit to issue an order.
The law allows for an urgent restraining order that can be applied without the gun owner being present and lasts up to 21 days, after which the subject can contest it before it’s extended for a year. Another version permits the gun owner to protest during an initial hearing and, if a judge bars them from owning guns after that first hearing, once more during a yearlong prohibition.
Even so, gun rights advocates fear people will have their guns taken away without good cause, perhaps targeted by a family member with a grudge.
“Someone who’s requesting a restraining order of this magnitude — we’re talking about taking away someone’s civil rights — needs to understand the gravity of that,” said California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees president Brandon Combs, “and the judge needs to take it as serious as it is and truly require that a showing be made that the person is a likely danger to others or themselves.”
Pushing back on that skepticism, Chatman argued that judges who will preside over the hearings will be able to consistently apply the law and turn away unsupported allegations, much as they do in deciding whether to apply domestic violence restraining orders.
“We basically make these determinations every day,” Chatman said. “We are constantly evaluating facts and evaluating the credibility of the individual who gives us that information.”
Second Amendment stalwarts also wonder if the orders will help in situations where violence is truly imminent. Rodger talked his way out of a law enforcement stop, they point out, and other would-be criminals would likely try to evade detection or fight back.
“More than likely the people who are going to get pinched are those who are not very likely” to commit an act of violence, Combs said. “If someone is going to do something awful they’re likely taking time to ensure they can get away with it before law enforcement gets involved.”
Martinez rejected that logic. To this day he isn’t certain having a gun restraining order available would have thwarted Rodger and saved his son. But it might have, and for him that’s enough.
“Do they work in very instance? No,” he said. “That’s not a good argument to say we shouldn’t have them in the same way you wouldn’t say we shouldn’t have seat belts because people still die in traffic accidents.”

Personally, I was to a very large gun show near Valley Forge (can you think of a more fitting place for a gun show?) the Saturday before Christmas. The joint was jammed all day and guns of all types were running out the door. Average wait times for the instant background check were running 45 minutes to an hour per person. I know because my wait for my new Smith & Wesson Shield 9mm was over 1/2 hr at 2 in the afternoon.

Every regulation they write in trying to deny us our basic right to self defense pushes this country one step closer to resistance and rebellion. You might get away with this in places like Chicago and New York and D.C. but, as one writer I read recently said, this is really not something you want to try in "fly over" country.

Barack Obama is far and away the best gun salesman the industry has ever seen.

An Honest Report on the Events in Corsica

Germany: Anti-Islamization Group’s Anthem dethrones Adele’s Hello from top spot on music charts

The anthem of the anti-Islamization group, Pegida, has toppled Adele as the number one tune in Germany. This as Merkel opens the gates to the Muslim invasion.
The Pegida Hymn outdid Adele in downloads….

but Amazon will use all the proceeds from Pegida Hymn downloads to help refugees. Similar to the Hate Pays scheme that Facebook advertised.

So, in other words, Amazon, or whoever posted the music at Amazon, is tricking people who oppose the Isalmization of Euroep, into donating money to a pro-Islam cause

I told u so I told u so I told u so I TOLD YOU SO .ANYONE HERE ***SICK TO DEATH OF BEING RIGHT***?

As if they suddenly came to an epiphany, the United States Air Force brass is now admitting what many of us have been screaming about for so long: We didn’t build nearly enough F-22s, and the F-35 cannot simply pick up the slack. So why aren’t those who pushed so hard to cancel the F-22 program being held accountable?

By the mid 2000s, the F-22 was finally entering the fray as the world’s first true stealth fighter, offering a quantum leap in capability and performance when compared with anything else on the battlefield. It was a thoroughbred weapon system meant to shape the battlefield by vanquishing anything in the skies and neutering enemy air defenses, so that less capable combat aircraft could survive over the battle space. It was a high-end door kicker, the ultimate “anti-access” fighter.

At the same time that the Raptor was coming online and proving itself,Defense Secretary Robert Gates, of both the Bush and Obama Administrations, was calling for the F-22’s demise. This was said to be due to the aircraft cost and use as “only” an air-to-air, destruction of enemy air defense, and deep strike platform.

Gates’s push for the Raptor’s demise came at the same time as the cost of examples of the jet were rapidly dropping. For the last batch of 60 of the super-fighters, the unit cost per jet was $137 million, which is pretty close to the cost of an “affordable” F-35A today – at a time when a similar number of F-35s have been built as F-22s, about 165 compared to the F-22’s 187.

Costs were slated to have continued to drop if another lot of about 53 jets were built to meet the Air Force’s stated minimum fleet size requirement of 243 airframes. But it never happened.

Instead the F-22 was cast off and all of the USAF’s fighter chips were put into the very much unproven F-35 bucket. Gates justified chopping the F-22 as he wanted aircraft to “fight the wars we are in today, and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead.” Considering air superiority and destruction of enemy air defenses is an absolute must for any conflict (aside for ones with totally permissible airspace), this was a very near-sighted evaluation, and as it turns out, prediction of the future.

To sustain U.S. air superiority, I am committed to building a fifth generation tactical fighter capability that can be produced in quantity at sustainable cost. Therefore I will recommend increasing the buy of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

A misleading statement if there ever was one, as it’s impossible to build something in quantity at a sustainable cost when you’re not willing to build it in great enough numbers so that a sustainable cost is achievable. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, but at some point, the costs eventually balance out.

For the F-22, that point was rapidly approaching.

The F-22 was by many accounts on the verge of a cost breakthrough that would have sent its unit cost plunging well below the $100 million line. Gates later said:

We have fulfilled the program. It’s not like we’re killing the F-22. We will have 187 of them... The military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22 beyond 187.

Considering that the minimum the Air Force said they could operate with was 243, this statement seems less than true. And that number was last ditch compromise, the real bottom-line fleet size the USAF required of the F-22 was around 339 jets, which itself was dropped drastically from the original number of around 750 jets originally envisioned. At 339 examples it was hoped that the F-15C/D force could have been retired.

Yet Gates was not alone in the push to cancel the F-22. The Bush administration was guilty of it too, although they were able to punt the final decision to the Obama administration, who demanded it be cancelled with a sharp veto threat.

Back in the Gates years, naysayers, like embattled Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Mosley and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wayne, both supporters of the F-22, were gotten rid of. Mosley has since reiterated his frustration with the F-22 decision, stating that the shutdown of the F-22 program “will prove to be one of the most strategically dislocated decisions made over the last 20 to 25 years.”

He also said that follow-on batches of F-22s were quoted as costing well below $90 million per copy fly-away cost, which is about 25 percent less than the cost of an F-35A today.

Nowadays it seems that everyone laments the premature F-22 line shutdown, from late-to-the-scene defense commentators to those at the very top of the USAF, including Air Combat Command chief Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, whoe was quoted in National Defense Magazine as saying:

“We don’t have enough F-22s, that’s a fact of life. We didn’t buy enough; we don’t have enough.” However, the Air Force is going to make do with the Raptors it does have, Carlisle said. “You’re going to need the Raptors” for a high-end fight, he said. “So you’re still going to have to do that and we’re going to do it with the 180 or so F-22s we have.”

The annual Air Force Association conference will kick off outside of Washington next week, where…Read more

With all this in mind, if we built enough F-22s to eradicate the enemy’s defenses, both in the air and on the ground, and improved the aircraft over time, perhaps even stretching it into an FB-22 with F-35 like avionics, would the USAF need an F-35A at all?

Instead, the force could be filled in by other high-end capabilities currently in the works, like a new long-range stealth bomber, stealthy standoff weapons and unmanned combat air vehicles. On the low-end side of the equation, plentiful, relatively cheap and proven platforms, like the F-16 and A-10, among others, could be available once air dominance has been achieved, or for lower-end conflicts that do not require the F-22’s high-end anti-access capabilities.

34 years ago, the USAF set out to build a fighter that could guarantee American air superiority for …Read more

So what exactly happened here? If we clearly do not have enough F-22s today and it seemed nobody really thought we had enough at the time of its cancellation, aside from those with the power to kill the program, and the jet was passed over for the F-35, an aircraft that the USAF itself admits cannot fill the high-end role like the F-22, somewhere along the line disinformation was passed along to decision makers, or worse. So why don’t we pull those key decision makers in and have them explain exactly how they understood the situation at the time, what information and intelligence were they going off of, and who gave them that information and when?

The F-35 is said to be the biggest weapons program of all time, literally a $1.5 trillion income proposition over its lifetime. As such, it has a tremendous amount of special interest, Congressional and corporate “momentum” behind it. During the period of the F-22’s cancellation, the F-35’s problems were just becoming so serious that they could no longer be denied. Any competition threatened its existence, including the F-22, Lockheed’s own product. For the USAF, why dive into a pit of unknowns and cost and timeline overruns when you already had the best fighter in the world in production?

The F-35 Joint Program Office countered a leaked report describing the jet’s dismal performance.…Read more

Since there appears to be little will in Washington to correct the error in judgement that ended the F-22 line by putting an improved F-22 back into production, we need to learn from this very expensive mistake. This is especially relevant considering nearly $30 billion of the F-22’s nearly $70 billion program cost was spent to just develop the fighter. By better understanding what they knew and when they knew it, and above all else, where the information for their conclusions came from, we can at least try to avoid such procurement and strategy blunders in the future.

As
the nation prepares to ring in the New Year, President Barack Obama is
preparing a colossal new executive action that could print-up work
permits for a huge number of foreign white-collar graduates every year,
above and beyond the levels set by Congress.
This executive
action, which directly bypasses Congressional lawmakers, is likely to
reverberate across the presidential race, as GOP voters look to choose a
nominee they believe will most effectively roll back the President’s
still-expanding agenda. And it will certainly raise new security
concerns as it covers categories of immigration utilized by migrants
from the Middle East and nearby regions.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security plans to publish the proposed rule tomorrow, the last day of 2015.
The
181-page rule focuses primarily on giving work-permits to foreign
college-grads who will compete against Americans for white collar jobs,
despite the large number of American graduates now stuck in lower-wage
positions and struggling to pay off college debts. The rule will also
make each foreign graduate much cheaper for U.S. employers to hire than
many U.S.-born college grads.HERE
BUZZFEED:

The
H-2 guest worker program, which brought in 150,000 legal foreign
workers last year, isn’t supposed to deprive any American of a job. But
many businesses go to extraordinary lengths to deny jobs to U.S. workers
so they can hire foreigners instead. A BuzzFeed News investigation.

MOULTRIE,
Georgia — “All you black American people, fuck you all…just go to the
office and pick up your check,” the supervisor at Hamilton Growers told
workers during a mass layoff in June 2009.
The following season,
according to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, about 80 workers, many of them black, were simply told: “All
you Americans are fired.HERE

The Real Story (or is it epitaph) for the Middle East

Nocamels:

Record Year For Innovation Nation: Israeli Startups Sell For $7.2B In 2015

Yesterday, international accounting firm PwC released its annual Hi-Tech Exit Report, revealing that Israeli technology leaders are not rushing to take their companies public. Instead, they are opting to be acquired by a larger company – or to hold out for the prized $1 billion ‘unicorn’ valuation. Yesterday, international accounting firm PwC released its annual Hi-Tech Exit Report, revealing that Israeli technology leaders are not rushing to take their companies public. Instead, they are opting to be acquired by a larger company – or to hold out for the prized $1 billion ‘unicorn’ valuation.

Note, at companies like Sodastream, where BDS claims they forced the company to relocate OUT of the west bank and into pre 67 Israel, Arabs, who were by policy paid the same as Israelis, LOST JOBS.

Meanwhile:

Nasrallah said to rebuff warning against attacking Israel

German envoy met with Hezbollah chief, who said revenge for Kuntar assassination would go forward — report

In a recent meeting, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly rejected a German envoy’s attempts to convince him not to attack Israel in retaliation for the December 19 assassination, attributed to Israel, of terrorist Samir Kuntar.

It’s a very sad story for the Sunni and Shia in the middle east, who preach (and hear the preaching but remain silent across generations, thus AGREEING by fact and function) murder of Jews and Christians for their personal benefit in the next world.

“I have heard from a reliable source that a police patrol was sent to the scene at Hennala after an outnumbered female police officer had been raped. The matter has not been made public in order to escape “a lynching mood”. Investigate it yourself, I can’t personally strew this around because I am closely involved with the police in a certain way, but among the police, this kind of incident can’t be allowed to be covered up.”

A Houston man has been arrested in connection with a suspected arson at a mosque on Christmas Day, but the motive for the crime remains a mystery, with the suspect maintaining he was a regular at the mosque.

A spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed that the suspect, 37-year-old Gary Nathaniel Moore of Houston, was arrested early Wednesday.

Moore appeared in court at 7 a.m., spokeswoman Nicole Strong said, and bond was set at $100,000.
According to a charging instrument released by the Harris County District Clerk, Moore told investigators at the scene that he has attended the storefront mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week.

Moore said he had been at the mosque earlier on Dec. 25 to pray, and had left at about 2 p.m. to go home, according to authorities and court papers.

Moore said he was the last person to leave the mosque and saw no smoke or other signs of fire when he departed, authorities said.

He maintained he had returned to the scene after hearing about the fire from a friend.
MJ Khan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, which operates the mosque, said he was unfamiliar with Moore.

"We are just looking into it ourselves," he said Wednesday morning after learning of the arrest.
"We are just really saddened by the whole thing," said Khan.

Humpday Blues

The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Infidel Babe Of The Week
Moran Atias - TYRANT

IBA Quote of the Week.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed — but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

****************

"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."~~~~~Bono~~~~~